Archives

Documentary History of the John Birch Society

Exciting news for anyone with a serious interest in the history of the American far right: Ernie Lazare has undertaken a “major project which will attempt to present a documentary and chronological history of the Birch Society based upon documents which have never been previously publicly available.” This is a work in progress, but it is progressing quickly. Click here for a preview.

Reading Robert Welch, Gary Allen, Cleon Skousen, and other first generation Birchers, you encounter many of the themes that define the hard right today—that the UN is working to destroy American sovereignty; that liberals and moderates are consciously and deliberately destroying the country from within; the toxicity of the Federal Reserve. Its spirit abides in many of Ron Paul’s positions, and for that matter, in the blanket condemnations of taxes and regulations that are standard Republican talking points today.

Between the economic catastrophe, the on-going polarization of American politics and culture, and the specifically racist reaction to the 2008 election, we are entering an epoch in which liberals would do well to educate themselves about the tenets and tactics of Bircherism. Not because it’s back front and center and in the mainstream—it’s not (in fact, the American Conservative Union just rejected the JBS’s offer to co-sponsor the 2012 CPAC event, as they did last year), but because its ideas and its influences still demarcate the furthest verges of the political right, and thus determine where its center lies as well. Fred Koch was one of the original Birchers; his sons David and Charles recently committed to spending some $200 million to defeat Obama next year. Its past may well become our future.

One thought on “Documentary History of the John Birch Society”

Col. Curtis Dall’s book “FDR: My Exploited Father In Law” is an excellent source to confirm that this internationalism really took hold during the FDR administration. Britain was a major source for this as well. –

Arnold Toynbee was very important in Royal Institute of International Affairs circles, being the RIIA director of studies. Given that position, he certainly would be qualified to state the intentions and objectives of that group, and sister organizations (like the Council on Foreign Relations). As recorded in the RIIA’s own journal, Toynbee said that “We are at present working discreetly but with all our might, to wrest this mysterious force called sovereignty out of the clutches of the local national states of our world. And all the time we are denying with our lips what we are doing with our hands, because to impugn the sovereignty of the local national states of the world is still a heresy for which a statesman or a publicist can be, perhaps not quite burnt at the stake, but certainly ostracized and discredited.” (International affairs: Journal of the Royal Institute of International Affairs, Volume 10, p. 809): http://tinyurl.com/3zt7crq

The operations of these internationalists are really visible if you look at the post WWII world. At the end of World War II, Bernard Baruch pushed for a World Government with atomic powers. Stalin was a bit of a Buonapartist and refused to comply. Bertrand Russell, supposedly a “pacifist” (in reality a One Worlder who wanted disarmament of nation states and armament of a World Government) thus urged a nuclear attack on the Soviet Union. Even though Stalin did not comply, as Sutton showed, massive aid to the Soviets still continued all throughout the Cold War. Sutton noted the extent of this aid in testimony before Subcommittee VII of the Platform Committee of the Republican Party at Miami Beach, Florida, August 15, 1972:

“In a few words: there is no such thing as Soviet technology. Almost all – perhaps 90-95 percent – came directly or indirectly from the United States and its allies. In effect the United States and the NATO countries have built the Soviet Union. Its industrial and its military capabilities. This massive construction job has taken 50 years. Since the Revolution in 1917. It has been carried out through trade and the sale of plants, equipment and technical assistance.”

As James Roosevelt and Major Jordan showed (and this can be corroborated with other evidence), FDR and Hopkins GAVE the Soviets their nuclear capacities.

It really is sickening when you think of it – you had all these people in the Capitalist countries and the Communist countries fighting proxy wars, with millions of them dying, and meanwhile the entire thing was a hoax, with the people at the top sharing the benefit. It brings to mind the pigs playing cards with the farmers at the end of Orwell’s “Animal Farm”.

The Baruch Plan didn’t get implemented right away, but instead, it was implemented Fabian style.

State Department Publication No. 7277 – entitled “Freedom From War”, written in 1961 (which corresponds to Public Law 87-297) stated the following:

p. 10:

“The manufacture of armaments would be prohibited except for those of agreed types and quantities to be used by the U.N. Peace Force and those required to maintain internal order. All other armaments would be destroyed or converted to peaceful purposes.”

it also called for (p. 11):

“The disbanding of all national armed forces and the prohibition of their reestablishment in any form whatsoever other than those required to preserve internal order and for contributions to a United Nations Peace Force”

it also called for (p. 12):

“The establishment and effective operation of an International Disarmament Organization within the framework of the United Nations to ensure compliance at all times with all disarmament obligations.”

This was later updated in a document entitled Blueprint for the Peace Race.

This becomes especially infuriating when you consider the information disclosed in Sutton’s Hoover Institution studies, showing that this “threat” was assisted all along, and built up to act as the anti-thesis, leading to a new synthesis.

Public Law 101-216 reinforces Public Law 87-297, and was passed on October 12, 1989.

Looking at modern times – at one level, Zbigniew Brzezinski wrote in “The Grand Chessboard” about how Eurasian powers had to be marginalized. On another level, he wrote about how the U.S. war machine will force the process of Globalism on defiant nations in order to standardize them into the Global system, that simultaneously the U.S. and other Western Powers would be submerged in a Web of International arrangements that would form the fetus of a World Government (happening now), and that ultimately the American Empire would pave the way for a revivified UN with teeth to take charge.

Many of these people were enthusiastic about the UN being a fulcrum for the synthesis of the Western and Soviet systems in the 1960s. We have seen this partially implemented with the State Department documents and public laws I have cited. This goal was also expressed in State Department Documents like “A World Effectively Controlled by the United Nations”. This document, written by Lincoln P. Bloomfield, is extremely interesting. It states: http://www.un-freezone.org/bloomfield_7.html

“A world effectively controlled by the United Nations is one in which “world government” would come about through the establishment of supranational institutions, characterized by mandatory universal membership and some ability to employ physical force. Effective control would thus entail a preponderance of political power in the hands of a supranational organization…. [T]he present UN Charter could theoretically be revised in order to erect such an organization equal to the task envisaged, thereby codifying a radical rearrangement of power in the world.”

It also states:
“The principal features of a model system would include the following:(1) powers sufficient to monitor and enforce disarmament, settle disputes, and keep the peace – including taxing powers … ;(2) an international force, balanced appropriately among ground, sea, air, and space elements, consisting of 500,000 men, recruited individually, wearing a UN uniform, and controlling a nuclear force composed of 50-100 mixed land-based mobile and undersea-based missiles, averaging one megaton per weapon; (3) governmental powers distributed among three branches…; (4) compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court….”

In thinking of how to implement this, Bloomfield wrote:
“An alternative road may bypass the main path of history, shortcircuiting the organic stages of consensus, value formation, and the experiences of common enterprise generally believed to underlie political community. This relies on a grave crisis or war to bring about a sudden transformation in national attitudes sufficient for the purpose. According to this version, the order [New World Order] we examine may be brought into existence as a result of a series of sudden, nasty, and traumatic shocks.”

He emphasized:
“National disarmament is a condition sine qua non for effective UN control…. The essential point is the transfer of the most vital element of sovereign power from the states to a supranational government…. The overwhelming central fact would still be the loss of control of their military power by individual nations.”

Soon, these characters would suggest that gradual Regionalization and submerging nations in complex webs of international relations would be preferable to just announcing a World Government controlled by the UN. Former U. S. Deputy Assistant Secretary of State, Trilateralist and CFR member Richard Gardner, writing in an April, 1974 Foreign Affairs article entitled The Hard Road to World Order, provided insight into how the World State was to be built:

“In this unhappy state of affairs, few people retain much confidence in the more ambitious strategies for world order that had wide backing a generation ago-‘world federalism,’ `charter `review,’ and `world peace through world law.’… If instant world government, Charter review, and a greatly strengthened International Court do not provide the answers, what hope for progress is there?… In short, the `house of world order’ would have to be built from the bottom up rather than from the top down. It will look like a great `booming, buzzing confusion,’ to use William James’ famous description of reality, but an end run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece, will accomplish much more than the old-fashioned frontal assault.”: http://ia700403.us.archive.org/28/items/TheHardRoadToWorldOrder/HardRoadtoWorldOrder.pdf

While reading through this, keep in mind the communist- capitalist synthesis aspect. Remember that In 1987, Mikhail Gorbachev stated: “We are moving toward a New World, the world of communism. We shall never turn off that road.” (Cf. Soviet Analyst: A Fortnightly Newsletter, Volumes 23-24, the University of Michigan [1994], p. 17): http://tinyurl.com/3vkq8e8

And indeed he was right. Communism did not “fall”, but dialectically synthesized into the Communist -Capitalist synthesis known as Globalism.

The notable Soviet dissident Vladimir Bukovsky has provided an account of the formation of the EU that is consistent with the convergence trend that has been established and shows exactly the design behind how the Soviet Union diffused. He was called upon to investigate the secret archives of the Soviet Union to investigate their criminality, and he found evidence of the conspiratorial roots of the modern EU. He published the documents in “EUSSR: The Soviet Roots of European Integration”. Here is an interview of him where he summarizes his findings: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YsBMfGwyPE8

As he says:
“In 1992 I had unprecedented access to Politburo and Central Committee secret documents which have been classified, and still are even now, for 30 years. These documents show very clearly that the whole idea of turning the European common market into a federal state was agreed between the left-wing parties of Europe and Moscow as a joint project which Gorbachev in 1988-89 called our “common European home.” [now “the new European Soviet”]

“The idea was very simple. It first came up in 1985-86, when the Italian Communists visited Gorbachev, followed by the German Social-Democrats. They all complained that the changes in the world… were threatening to wipe out the achievement (as they called it) of generations of Socialists and Social-Democrats — threatening to reverse it completely. Therefore the only way to withstand this onslaught of wild capitalism (as they called it) was to try to introduce the same socialist goals in all countries at once. Prior to that, the left-wing parties and the Soviet Union had opposed European integration…. From 1985 onwards they completely changed their view. The Soviets came to a conclusion and to an agreement with the left-wing parties that if they worked together they could hijack the whole European project and turn it upside down. Instead of an open market they would turn it into a federal state.

“According to the documents, 1985-86 is the turning point. I have published most of these documents. You might even find them on the internet. But the conversations they had are really eye opening. For the first time you understand that there is a conspiracy — quite understandable for them, as they were trying to save their political hides. In the East the Soviets needed a change of relations with Europe…. in the West the left-wing parties were afraid of being wiped out and losing their influence and prestige. So it was a conspiracy….

“In January of 1989, for example, a delegation of the Trilateral Commission came to see Gorbachev. It included [former Japanese Prime Minister Yasuhiro] Nakasone, [former French President Valéry] Giscard d’Estaing, [American banker David] Rockefeller and [former US Secretary of State Henry] Kissinger. They had a very nice conversation where they tried to explain to Gorbachev that Soviet Russia had to integrate into the financial institutions of the world, such as Gatt, the IMF and the World Bank….

“…the original idea was to have what they called a convergency, whereby the Soviet Union would mellow somewhat and become more social-democratic, while Western Europe would become social-democratic and socialist…. This is why the structures of the European Union were initially built with the purpose of fitting into the Soviet structure. This is why they are so similar in functioning and in structure.

“It is no accident that the European Parliament, for example, reminds me of the Supreme Soviet. It looks like the Supreme Soviet because it was designed like it. Similarly, when you look at the European Commission it looks like the Politburo. I mean it does so exactly, except for the fact that the Commission now has 25 members and the Politburo usually had 13 or 15 members. Apart from that they are exactly the same, unaccountable to anyone, not directly elected by anyone at all.”

“When you look into all this bizarre activity of the European Union with its 80,000 pages of regulations it looks like Gosplan… an organisation which was planning everything in the economy, to the last nut and bolt, five years in advance. Exactly the same thing is happening in the EU. When you look at the type of EU corruption, it is exactly the Soviet type of corruption, going from top to bottom rather than going from bottom to top.

“If you go through all the structures and features of this emerging European monster you will notice that it more and more resembles the Soviet Union. Of course, it is a milder version…. It has no KGB — not yet — but I am very carefully watching such structures as Europol for example. That really worries me a lot because this organisation will probably have powers bigger than those of the KGB…. Can you imagine a KGB with diplomatic immunity?

“They will have to police us on 32 kinds of crimes — two of which are particularly worrying, one is called racism, another is called xenophobia. … Someone from the British government told us that those who object to uncontrolled immigration from the Third World will be regarded as racist and those who oppose further European integration will be regarded as xenophobes….’

Ashley Mote, of the European Parliament, stated:

“Even the EU’s public face – the unelected commission – is part of the charade. Power does not lie with them. It lies with the senior staff running their departments…. We do not know what their budgets are, how they are financed, or who approves their costs. Indeed, we do not even know what powers they have been given, nor by whom. And we cannot get rid of them….
“The EU would no longer be the servant of the member states. It would have become their master. Every previous treaty was a small step along that road…. The other 24 commissioners, each appointed by the other member states… are figure-heads.They take the flak in the public arena, and make announcements decided for them by their senior staff, with the guidance of the secret committees.
“…officially above the commission sits a Council of Ministers…. But the council is just more of the same elaborate illusion…. The European Parliament sits below this vast superstructure… designed to create an illusion of accountable democracy. A condescending pat on the head for voters held in contempt.
“…the EU’s parliament has a built-in majority in favour of the social market. It is the repository of an unspoken agreement between the left and the multinationals. … In effect, the left has said to the multinationals: you can have your markets stitched up for you, if we can indulge ourselves in endless social engineering. Big business has agreed. The result is a largely supportive parliament both from the left and right of the political divide.”: http://web.archive.org/web/20080415130001/http://www.ashleymote.co.uk/topics.php?filter=&sec=article&art_

This is also happening in Asia and North America by gradual merger of various infrastructures and bureaucracies. An overview of the process, with source documents made available, is provided here: http://nauresistance.org/